Writ petition challenging an order in Regular Civil Suit No. 21/2004 allowing an amendment to add a prayer for recovery of possession. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the amendment did not change the suit's nature.
The writ petition was dismissed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1559 OF 2011
Piraji s/o. Deoba Jadhav, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Gaglegaon, Taluka : Biloli, District : Nanded, Through GPA, Piraji s/o. Nagorao Gaikwad, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Village Kesrali, .. Petitioner Taluka : Biloli, (Original defendant District : Nanded. no.1)
versus
(2)
Mr. Govind G. Suryawanshi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE : 9TH MARCH 2011
COURT'S ORDER :
(3)
contends that for recovery of possession, the respondent / plaintiff has to file suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, within a period of six months and such a relief cannot be added to present suit as nature of suit itself undergoes change. He argues that pleadings and prayer clauses in the plaint cannot be allowed to be changed. He relies upon judgment of the Apex Court reported at 2009 AIR SCW 6644 , in the case of M/s. Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. M/s. Narayanaswamy and Sons & others , to urge that subsequent cause of action cannot be allowed to be added in the suit already filed.
(4)
made in original plaint and thereby defeating the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and this was also adversely affecting the defendants. Hon. Apex Court has noted that such amendment changing entire character of plaint could not have been permitted, that too, after lapse of 4 years of the institution of the suit. The facts, therefore, clearly show that law laid down by the Hon. Apex Court has no application here.
( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE
bgp/wp1559
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a prayer for recovery of possession can be added to an existing suit for declaration and injunction upon subsequent dispossession.
Whether the amendment alters the nature of the suit to preclude relief under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. M/s. Narayanaswamy and Sons & othersDistinguished¶19
2009 AIR SCW 6644 · Who else cites this
Order XII Rule 6 of CPCReferred¶21
Piraji s/o Deoba Jadhav Through GPA Piraji s/o Nagorao Gaikwad
Rohit s/o Sangamnath Mandharne
Sangamnath s/o Maroti Mandharne
B.P. Dharmadhikari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
